*Future of Conservatism discussion now on C-SPAN.

[elleng]

Good part: No 'radical right' answers.

Panelists: Reihan Salam, National Review Online
Scarborough
John Podhoretz, Commentary
Kristol
Douthat, NYTimes
someone else

[Warpy]

1. They honestly don't have a future at this point

because all of their ideas have been put into practice over the last 35 years (again) and have failed spectacularly (again). The only future they have is hanging together, out of power, and waiting for another slick pitchman to come along to give their old, failed ideas new life by assigning a new vocabulary to them.

However, I'm sure the panel will come up with the brilliant idea of restraining the teabaggers and getting them to tone down the crazy rhetoric. Good luck to them on that one. I don't think it's going to happen.

[elleng]

2. Interestingly, they're not discussing t-buggers.

Missed the early part, but what I've heard includes rational questions and colloquy, including faulting PrezO * (of course!) for not having dealt with 'big banks' and Wall Street!

[hibbing]

3. future

Hey,
Darn, saw this post too late to watch it. Was it more of the our ideas are fine, we just need to change the way we talk about them bullshit they have been saying since the last election?

Peace

[elleng]

5. No, it wasn't,

they were searching for answers and ways to get them to the public when they can figure them out. It was very thoughtful and civil.

AND they (I forget which one, in particular) mentioned some of rmoney's failures, to address critical issues.

[rocktivity]

4. Watched a little of it last night

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2266998

They're either going to have to come to terms that not enough people are buying what they're selling, or cheat their way into power.


rocktivity

[elleng]

6. These guys seemed to have recognized that people are not buying repug crap.

[lpbk2713]

7. We see the future of Conservatism before our very eyes.

WTG Teabaggers. Nice job.

[bluestate10]

8. Conservatives aren't the same thing as republicans. Democrats are closer to conservative

than modern republicans are. The last truly "conservative" republican was Teddy Roosevelt, and he can rightfully be considered a progressive when one look at his policies. TR busted trusts and gave the little man a chance to compete. TR purchased closed land and set it aside land for public enjoyment.

Modern republican's entire policy is predicated on disliking something. The republican party has attracted the 25-30% of americans that outright hate people that don't look like them or believe as they do. The few sane republicans don't have a choice other than to become democrats until the day when that party splits into a moderate-left party and a moderate-right party, giving the country two sane major political parties to chose from. The country needs a two or more political party system, what it doesn't need is the modern republican party.